The Homelessness Crisis

Rioga na hEireann

MOD
I've started a new thread for this discussion as an older zombie thread was resurrected.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Another day, another story about our Homeless crisis:



Last week it was a record 120 people sleeping rough in Dublin, this week we get a fuller picture that there are 700 Families AND 1,500 children in homeless accommodation in Ireland (are those children not part of the families in question?). The article states there is a 400% increase in demand for services and uses terms like 'humanitarian crisis' and 'probably the worst I have seen' (The CEO of Depaul Ireland).

Am I the only person who is thinking WTF? Only 120 people sleep rough and approximately 3,000 in temporary accommodation? I have never once seen anyone sleeping rough who wasn't a junkie, an alcoholic or mentally unstable and sometimes all three. As for the rest, it must be humiliating and extremely unsettling to have to move in and out of Hotels and Hostels or other temporary accommodation but a humanitarian crisis? Give me a break.

How does this issue get such enormous media attention. Is it some folk memory from the 1840's or is it the plethora of quangos and charities that deal with this perennial 'crisis'? It seems to me that the salaries expended on solving the crisis would more than buy 700 homes (which is a 400% increase on last years requirement!!!).

There will always be homelessness due to marriage breakdowns, mental breakdowns and other misfortunes but can it not be dealt with without the quangos and media making out that it is akin to Pol Pot's killing fields.

Feel free to invoke Godwin but, I don't care, I just had to get that off my chest.

Nah, for sure it's a much bigger problem than you think, there's waaay more people on ethe streets compared to before... Best advise is to check it out for yourself - partner up with someone and bring a bit of spare cash and go around streets of Dublin.. you'll find people with addiction and mental health issues, yes that's right but there's also a lot a lot of people who are just normal but verrry poor. They regard themselves that way as well so it kind of reflects in their attitude so others might see them as having addiction issues

Anyway, we have a responsibility to help them as they are our country men and women and we can't leave them like that if we can afford it... if they got issues then get them food but if they're just down on their luck then we should dig deep and bail them out. Even if you help one person with a job or enough money to get back on their feet you could save a life

riclad

Many people sleep on the streets because the hostels are full of people
who are using drugs and they feel safer on the streets .They simply cant afford to pay the rent for a flat in dublin.
i dont know if its true but i hear some single people become homeless on purpose .As it will give you high priority in getting a home from the council .
How do you know if someone is mentally unstable or a junkie,
do you go around talking to dozens of homeless people ?
IF the government built 30 thousand homes tommorow it might have little effect on rental costs apart from maybe reducing the rents for rent
allowance tenants .
these homes would built be in area,s like tallaght or finglas not in rathmines or
dublin 1.
IT would help alot of people if a few hostels had a no drugs rule ,
you cannot bring any drugs into the hostel .

topper75

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

People want to live in the most expensive city, that's the issue.

Move out of Dublin.

Exactly. Mohammed can go to the mountain, rather than expecting the mountain to move to him.

Much of the homelessness 'crisis' is actually a warped entitlement notion crisis. But you won't get a sexy media story to garner clicks or shift copy out of that.

Dravokivich

topper75 wrote: »

Exactly. Mohammed can go to the mountain, rather than expecting the mountain to move to him.

Much of the homelessness 'crisis' is actually a warped entitlement notion crisis. But you won't get a sexy media story to garner clicks or shift copy out of that.

It isn't one of entitlement.

I can't afford somewhere to live.

I don't want to be handed somewhere.

I want somewhere affordable.

Single parent on 28k, it's not bloody likely this side of the apocalypse.

JC01

I know it's today's big buzzword but honestly I can't figure out who decided we have a homelessness "crisis" rather than an "issue" or even a "low-but-relatively-normal-rate" I mean the absolute worst case number I can find is 8k people are homeless, now for starts I find that hard to believe but let's say that's true, then even wayyy underestimating our population at 4 milllion people that gives a homeless rate of roughly 0.2%, by contrast equally rough maths gives Germany a rate of 0.4 at 335k people for 82million.

I fail to see how such a low homeless population can be considered a crisis? In my eyes the real living/property crisis is the incredible difficulty hard working young people face in buying a reasonable priced property with there own money. These people don't have any allowances/subsidys/supports/welfare from the gov to help them. They get left with a decent 40k+ job after years of college etc but 0 chance of buying anything with it trapping them in an endless and broken rental market and all the while they get painted as "lofty middle-class" in the media who are too busy fawning over the latest sob story doing the rounds.

Red_Wake

JC01 wrote: »

I know it's today's big buzzword but honestly I can't figure out who decided we have a homelessness "crisis" rather than an "issue" or even a "low-but-relatively-normal-rate" I mean the absolute worst case number I can find is 8k people are homeless, now for starts I find that hard to believe but let's say that's true, then even wayyy underestimating our population at 4 milllion people that gives a homeless rate of  roughly 0.2%, by contrast equally rough maths gives Germany a rate of 0.4 at 335k people for 82million.

I fail to see how such a low homeless population can be considered a crisis? In my eyes the real living/property crisis is the incredible difficulty hard working young people face in buying a reasonable priced property with there own money. These people don't have any allowances/subsidys/supports/welfare from the gov to help them. They get left with a decent 40k+ job after years of college etc but 0 chance of buying anything with it trapping them in an endless and broken rental market and all the while they get painted as "lofty middle-class" in the media who are too busy fawning over the latest sob story doing the rounds.

With the water charges gone, the professional protesters needed something to complain about.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

There's a solution here you're not seeing.

It a very complex area we need more housing that will solve the 'cries' for those living on low incomes in urban areas where the need is greatest.

What I find irritating is the classifying as the homeless those who's primary presentation is mental health or addictions while they are homeless they are going to need support of some sort for the rest of their lives.

Then there are another group who are lacking consistency and boundaries they live chaotic lives or maybe are involved in crime they are very hard to house because naturally enough no one wants to live beside them.

Yet its all lumped together as the homeless.

NIMAN

I know not necessarily related to the Irish problem, but what do you think of this situation in NI? I would guess plenty of cases in Ireland like this too

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-41198868

Massive family, offered 3 houses, turned them all down. What are the authorities to do? Build them a house from scratch to suit them?

joe swanson

I really think it's a fabricated crisis led by the usual 'won't pay' brigade led by posh boy Paul 'never had a real job' Murphy , his crowd of thugs and the shinners (who have made a mess of the homeless situation in the north). Of course you will be homeless if you refuse offer after offer of social housing.

Ipso

Harsh to say it's fabricated, there are just no easy fixes and as someone mentioned above there is a percentage of homelessness that won't be solved by throwing money at it.

Henwin

having being a census enuerator in kerry, i couldnt get over the number of vacant houses in the county.
There really shud not be a homeless crisis.
why cant the government bring industry to the whole of ireland and make the owners of vacant houses rent them out. schools are closing round here for lack of kids.
we can revive rural ireland by spreading out the population

riclad

we have a crisis because rents are very high, theres been very little house building in the last 10 years.
People who might be eligble for rent allowance cant find any flats under the rent allowance limit.
theres 1000,s of people living in hotels for years .
A hotel is not ideal to bring up young children ,they have no kitchen or
rooms to play in.
Theres a built up demand for housing from 2008,
Some workers are leaving ireland because of the high cost of rents.
You are very naive if you think most of the homeless people have been offered council housing .
We would need 50-60 thousand houses built just to bring the situation back to normal.

Ipso

Henwin wrote: »

having being a census enuerator in kerry, i couldnt get over the number of vacant houses in the county.
There really shud not be a homeless crisis.
why cant the government bring industry to the whole of ireland and make the owners of vacant houses rent them out. schools are closing round here for lack of kids.
we can revive rural ireland by spreading out the population

How? And what industry?

Spider Web

joe swanson wrote: »

I really think it's a fabricated crisis led by the usual 'won't pay' brigade led by posh boy Paul 'never had a real job' Murphy , his crowd of thugs and the shinners (who have made a mess of the homeless situation in the north). Of course you will be homeless if you refuse offer after offer of social housing.

Much as I despise the crowd you're referring to, it is not manufactured. There are fewer properties available - due to years of no building, caused by a global recession. Despite the "its d guverments fault nd der a discrace nd veradker is a bastard" idiots, there is a need for more housing stock.

There is the need for a middle ground too. While the people who demand to be near their mother and father (and put their children through the misery of living in a hotel) are just sickeningly self entitled, I don't think Dublin people with families should have to move to somewhere like Longford or Leitrim either. But Navan or Portlaoise seem a fair compromise.

Vizzy

Spider Web wrote: »

Much as I despise the crowd you're referring to, it is not manufactured. There are fewer properties available - due to years of no building, caused by a global recession. Despite the "its d guverments fault nd der a discrace nd veradker is a bastard" idiots, there is a need for more housing stock.

There is the need for a middle ground too. While the people who demand to be near their mother and father (and put their children through the misery of living in a hotel) are just sickeningly self entitled, I don't think Dublin people with families should have to move to somewhere like Longford or Leitrim either. But Navan or Portlaoise seem a fair compromise.

Good post.

However, the situation in relation to availability of private rented accommodation or Council housing is probably no better in Portlaoise or Navan.

In relation to the number of "vacant" units, there was a study done recently by one of the Dublin authorities where there we supposedly 3000 vacant units, but when you take out the "unsuitable" ones, there were only 75 approx , which could be let to housing applicants.

Spider Web

Vizzy wrote: »

Good post.

However, the situation in relation to availability of private rented accommodation or Council housing is probably no better in Portlaoise or Navan.

In relation to the number of "vacant" units, there was a study done recently by one of the Dublin authorities where there we supposedly 3000 vacant units, but when you take out the "unsuitable" ones, there were only 75 approx , which could be let to housing applicants.

Aye, true - what I should have included was that private rental accommodation may be on the cards in places like Navan or Portlaoise or Tullamore, but maybe it's not that affordable.

rightgirl

ray darcy has pledged 3 million euro to buy homes for the homeless,
meanwhile rte drag ordinary citizens before the judge for not paying ray;s salary
you couldn;t make it up,

Vizzy

Spider Web wrote: »

Aye, true - what I should have included was that private rental accommodation may be on the cards in places like Navan or Portlaoise or Tullamore, but maybe it's not that affordable.

Sad to say that private rented isn't really more available in any provincial town at the moment. Sure, there are less people looking for it, but there is less there in the first place.
Agree with you about families not being required to move to Leitrim or Longford from Dublin for 2 reasons;
1. It would be too much of an emotional wrench for them to cut all family ties
2. I would imagine that there are already people in these areas who require any private rented or Council housing that becomes available.

However, you could argue that if they are not prepared to move to somewhere outside Dublin, then they are not really homeless.

What I would suggest is that if you are from Kilkenny, for instance, then you should be prepared to accept housing in any part of the County or else you are taken off the housing list (and this then has the consequence that you don't qualify for HAP/ Rent Supplement)

end of the road

Vizzy wrote: »

Sad to say that private rented isn't really more available in any provincial town at the moment. Sure, there are less people looking for it, but there is less there in the first place.
Agree with you about families not being required to move to Leitrim or Longford from Dublin for 2 reasons;
1. It would be too much of an emotional wrench for them to cut all family ties
2. I would imagine that there are already people in these areas who require any private rented or Council housing that becomes available.

3. the resources aren't there to deal with them and it would cost near the trillion mark to get them implemented or up to scratch for the amount of people. it's not so much for those all ready existing there.

Vizzy wrote: »

However, you could argue that if they are not prepared to move to somewhere outside Dublin, then they are not really homeless.

well you couldn't really. that would be an attempt to fudge the issue. if they fit the definitions of homeless they are homeless.

Vizzy wrote: »

What I would suggest is that if you are from Kilkenny, for instance, then you should be prepared to accept housing in any part of the County or else you are taken off the housing list (and this then has the consequence that you don't qualify for HAP/ Rent Supplement)

pointless and not cost effective and would bring undue hardship for no benefit or reason.
the refusal of houses is a non-issue anyway, it's only the loss to the person who refuses as they have to wait longer. someone else will get the house and will be glad the other person refused it.

Wheeliebin30

end of the road wrote: »

3. the resources aren't there to deal with them and it would cost near the trillion mark to get them implemented or up to scratch for the amount of people. it's not so much for those all ready existing there.



well you couldn't really. that would be an attempt to fudge the issue. if they fit the definitions of homeless they are homeless.



pointless and not cost effective and would bring undue hardship for no benefit or reason.
the refusal of houses is a non-issue anyway, it's only the loss to the person who refuses as they have to wait longer. someone else will get the house and will be glad the other person refused it.

But then that person remains "homesless"whinging to the papers.

Come on.

Vizzy

end of the road wrote: »

3. the resources aren't there to deal with them and it would cost near the trillion mark to get them implemented or up to scratch for the amount of people. it's not so much for those all ready existing there.

well you couldn't really. that would be an attempt to fudge the issue. if they fit the definitions of homeless they are homeless.

pointless and not cost effective and would bring undue hardship for no benefit or reason.
the refusal of houses is a non-issue anyway, it's only the loss to the person who refuses as they have to wait longer. someone else will get the house and will be glad the other person refused it.

Have you a link to support the "trillion mark" please

Homeless i.e. "without a home".
If someone is offered a house/apartment that is sufficient for their needs, then they are no longer homeless.

If someone refuses offers of Council housing they are no longer entitled to "housing supports" and rightly so.

end of the road

Vizzy wrote: »

Homeless i.e. "without a home".
If someone is offered a house/apartment that is sufficient for their needs, then they are no longer homeless.

once they except it they aren't. if they don't then they are still homeless. if the appartment is sufficient for their needs then i'm assuming they will except it. what you or i believe is sufficient for their needs and what they believe is sufficient for their needs may be 2 different things.

Vizzy wrote: »

If someone refuses offers of Council housing they are no longer entitled to "housing supports" and rightly so.

they are entitled to housing supports and rightly so. it's none of our business but is between them and the local authority and is ultimately their loss if they refuse a house.

JC01

end of the road wrote: »

once they except it they aren't. if they don't then they are still homeless. if the appartment is sufficient for their needs then i'm assuming they will except it. what you or i believe is sufficient for their needs and what they believe is sufficient for their needs may be 2 different things.



they are entitled to housing supports and rightly so. it's none of our business but is between them and the local authority and is ultimately their loss if they refuse a house.

Not entirely sure I agree with two of your points. For starts I reckon it's very straightforward to identify what constitutes suitable accommodation for 90% of the housing list, Id be inclined to heavily restrict the input of the receiving party into deciding if there practically free accommodation is up to that persons particular needs/wants as that allows for a system that's doomed from the start.

Also what exactly makes it so that everybody is "entitled" to HAP etc even after refusing a property. Again I'd say once you turn down a place you really may go look after yourself.

Vizzy

end of the road wrote: »

once they except it they aren't. if they don't then they are still homeless. if the appartment is sufficient for their needs then i'm assuming they will except it. what you or i believe is sufficient for their needs and what they believe is sufficient for their needs may be 2 different things.



they are entitled to housing supports and rightly so. it's none of our business but is between them and the local authority and is ultimately their loss if they refuse a house.

Correct - it doesn't matter what you or I believe.

Fact remains though, if someone refuses a house that is sufficient to their needs from a housing perspective and not cos it isn't close enough to mammy, then they are rendering themselves homeless.

As regards housing support, if someone refuses "housing support" by way of a suitable Council house they are rendering themselves homeless.
Why then should I (or you) continue to pay for them in private rented accommodation or in a B&B/Hotel ?
At the end of the day it is "our loss" if they refuse housing.

whisky_galore

The Irish State built social housing to replace the godawful tenements when the country (and the rest of the world following the '29 Crash) was broke and somehow we can't do it now? They were of their time, but they were still solid houses and many are still lived in to this day.

Why is this the case?

We build hotels/shiny new offices and industrial units and apartments affordable only to the top dogs, but don't build anything for the low wage/entry level workers. Where are they supposed to live?

zmgakt7uw2dvfs

Deise Vu wrote: »

How does this issue get such enormous media attention

The media decide what stories to promote and ignore.

end of the road

JC01 wrote: »

Not entirely sure I agree with two of your points. For starts I reckon it's very straightforward to identify what constitutes suitable accommodation for 90% of the housing list,

it's not no . people will have certain needs and requirements which need to be taken into account. i don't mean the garden isn't big enough or any of that nonsense however.

JC01 wrote: »

Id be inclined to heavily restrict the input of the receiving party into deciding if there practically free accommodation is up to that persons particular needs/wants as that allows for a system that's doomed from the start.

they have to be allowed input as otherwise we are forcing people into unsuitable accommodation which will cause more problems then the current system would.

JC01 wrote: »

Also what exactly makes it so that everybody is "entitled" to HAP etc even after refusing a property.

because they need to be housed as they don't earn enough to house themselves.

JC01 wrote: »

Again I'd say once you turn down a place you really may go look after yourself.

can't be done as people will suffer undue hardship for no good reason, + crime would rise.

end of the road

Vizzy wrote: »

Fact remains though, if someone refuses a house that is sufficient to their needs from a housing perspective and not cos it isn't close enough to mammy, then they are rendering themselves homeless.

they aren't no . clearly they aren't excepting a property that is sufficient to their needs, doesn't matter whether you or i agree or not as to whether their needs are being met, that's between them and the local authority and is for the local authority to decide what to do via the relevant legislation.

Vizzy wrote: »

As regards housing support, if someone refuses "housing support" by way of a suitable Council house they are rendering themselves homeless.

they are still homeless.

Vizzy wrote: »

Why then should I (or you) continue to pay for them in private rented accommodation or in a B&B/Hotel ?

we shouldn't ultimately. but that is for the local authority to decide what to do. however they have to be housed somewhere ultimately.

Vizzy wrote: »

At the end of the day it is "our loss" if they refuse housing.

it's not really. we lose no matter what as we are paying in some form.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't no . clearly they aren't excepting a property that is sufficient to their needs, doesn't matter whether you or i agree or not as to whether their needs are being met, that's between them and the local authority and is for the local authority to decide what to do via the relevant legislation.



they are still homeless.



we shouldn't ultimately. but that is for the local authority to decide what to do. however they have to be housed somewhere ultimately.



it's not really. we lose no matter what as we are paying in some form.

There are specific factors that identify a person's housing need. It's not by way of discussion, although the local authority will meet and identify individual requirements as they deem fit.

Having performed this role for several years, let me correct your impression that most people on the housing list (my experience would say that 90% is about right) don't fit into a very standard template that really just identifies the approximate area and the number of bedrooms required.

The vast majority of the rest would be covered by something simply allowed for such as "requires ground floor".

I don't think it's great form for you to constantly raise vague objections to any points on any subject whilst pretending specific knowledge (or even general knowledge) that you clearly lack.

Fatalism couched as "it is what it is and it's not your business" is separate to this but still remarkably pointless as a contribution to a debate on public issues.

tomwaterford

whisky_galore wrote: »

The Irish State built social housing to replace the godawful tenements when the country (and the rest of the world following the '29 Crash) was broke and somehow we can't do it now? They were of their time, but they were still solid houses and many are still lived in to this day.

Why is this the case?

We build hotels/shiny new offices and industrial units and apartments affordable only to the top dogs, but don't build anything for the low wage/entry level workers. Where are they supposed to live?

This is ture....even when the country was on its knees in the 50s and 60's we could build social housing


But not today,when it's supposedly one of richest in Europe?
How is that

JC01

end of the road wrote: »

it's not no . people will have certain needs and requirements which need to be taken into account. i don't mean the garden isn't big enough or any of that nonsense however.



they have to be allowed input as otherwise we are forcing people into unsuitable accommodation which will cause more problems then the current system would.


because they need to be housed as they don't earn enough to house themselves.





can't be done as people will suffer undue hardship for no good reason, + crime would rise.

On my phone so can't multi quote.

1. I'm saying 90% would have standard similar requirements, I do realise a small amount have specific needs in a property. But they would be the exception not the rule.

2. In my book putting people into "unsuitable" accommodation in there view i.e. Too far from family/friends etc is far superior to them being on the street so I can't see how this causes more problems than the current system. Again here I feel a standard template for what qualifies as adequate housing is a must.

3. If they need to be housed because they can't afford to house themselves then I'm sorry but you accept the first offer you get. Nobody offered to give me an extra 100k to buy where I really wanted too, I compromised and bought what real world practicalities told me I could buy. I don't see why these same realities shouldn't apply to social housing.

4. It's not for no good reason. It's because they refused the property they were offered in this hypothetical situation. If they want to turn too crime as a result of there decisions that's not anybody's business but the judicial system. I loathe this point as it's basically threatening society with a "look after me how I want or else" attitude. That thinking is utterly unacceptable in the normal working to buy a home class of people in this country so again I cannot comprehend how it can be let apply to people on a housing list.

Vizzy

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't no . clearly they aren't excepting a property that is sufficient to their needs, doesn't matter whether you or i agree or not as to whether their needs are being met, that's between them and the local authority and is for the local authority to decide what to do via the relevant legislation.

You are correct- it is between them and the Local Authority, and the Local Authority determine their housing needs having met with the applicant. If they require specific type housing e.g. specially adapted housing, this will be offered to them, otherwise it is not housing that is sufficient to their needs.
If they choose to turn this down, well then they clearly are putting other priorities above their housing


they are still homeless.

See above

we shouldn't ultimately. but that is for the local authority to decide what to do. however they have to be housed somewhere ultimately.

If they turn down suitable housing, then the Local Authority have met their housing need. They will ultimately need to be housed somewhere but the Local Authority have no obligation to provide it.

it's not really. we lose no matter what as we are paying in some form.

We are paying in some form, but I for one am not keen to be paying for people to live in hotels and B&B's when there is perfectly good accommodation available to them that they are unwilling to accept.

..

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is ture....even when the country was on its knees in the 50s and 60's we could build social housing


But not today,when it's supposedly one of richest in Europe?
How is that

Because it realised in time long run it costs too much and isn't viable.

It's not that hard to understand.

There is only a limited amount of money.

40 billion a year on health and welfare.

JC01

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Because it realised in time long run it costs too much and isn't viable.

It's not that hard to understand.

There is only a limited amount of money.

40 billion a year on health and welfare.

Off topic but that 40billion could arguably be halved if private sector efficiancy was introduced. Unfortunately there is 0 political will to do so much like there is 0 political will to just bite the bullet, build 3k social housing units in north Dublin, 2k in Cork and 1k in Galway/Sligo, introduce an absolute zero tolerance attitude to anti social behaviour in these units and actually fix this problem in two years.

I don't think this is a question of money, as is usually the case in Ireland, political realitys are the core problem.

rekluse

How hard is it to get council housing / Temporary accommodation in Ireland from the council? I know here in the UK unless you are seriously ill or have children, the council won't even enetertain you. If you're a single fella, you may as well not even bother going to the council. There aren't even any self referring homeless hostels in London, that's another whole rigmarole, which can entail sleeping out on the streets overnight for 3 nights in one location waiting for an outreach team to come find you and verify that you are rough sleeping, and they MIGHT be able to take you to a crappy hostel with 25 other people sleeping on mattresses on the floor. Is it similar in Ireland? How hard is it to get into a hostel?

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Because it realised in time long run it costs too much and isn't viable.

It's not that hard to understand.

There is only a limited amount of money.

40 billion a year on health and welfare.

And paying endlessly for rent relief and putting people up in hotels with near on 3000 children homeless is a viable alternative??


When did this become something to aspire to?

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

And paying endlessly for rent relief and putting people up in hotels with near on 3000 children homeless is a viable alternative??


When did this become something to aspire to?

Well how many social houses do want built?

Tell me what you think and we will work out the maths.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Well how many social houses do want built?

Tell me what you think and we will work out the maths.

However many it takes tbh to take every child out of homelessness (taking an average of 2 kids per family??...that's a rough count of 1500 homes)


Why bother pretending to be a rich country if we can't even ensure children have a roof over there head???

Its pure ludicrious to think it's ok to have 3000 children homeless while they can turn around and hand a garda commissioner retiring in disgrace 300K of a pay off

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

However many it takes tbh to take every child out of homelessness (taking an average of 2 kids per family??...that's a rough count of 1500 homes)


Why bother pretending to be a rich country if we can't even ensure children have a roof over there head???

Its pure ludicrious to think it's ok to have 3000 children homeless while they can turn around and hand a garda commissioner retiring in disgrace 300K of a pay off

They do have a roof over their head.

And like Erica Fleming a lot have been offered housing but are refusing therefore keeping their children "homeless".

But you don't want to discuss that.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

They do have a roof over their head.

And like Erica Fleming a lot have been offered housing but are refusing therefore keeping their children "homeless".

But you don't want to discuss that.

How many have refused housing?


Do you wish to see government keep people housed in hotels in perpetually?

Vizzy

tomwaterford wrote: »

How many have refused housing?


Do you wish to see government keep people housed in hotels in perpetually?

In a Local Authority that I dealt with there was 21% refused in 2016 and 15% refused so far in 2017.
( that is "first refusals" and the housing applicants are allowed to refuse 2 offers before they are taken off the list, so you can probably halve that figure for actual "total refusal to take a house")

I certainly don't want to see people housed in hotels but if that is what they choose over an offer of a house, then what can you do ?
BTW, don't want an Erica Fleming situation either, whereby you can refuse as many offers as you like until you are housed next door to mammy/the school/the shopping centre.

Red_Wake

tomwaterford wrote: »

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

They do have a roof over their head.

And like Erica Fleming a lot have been offered housing but are refusing therefore keeping their children "homeless".

But you don't want to discuss that.

How many have refused housing?


Do you wish to see government keep people housed in hotels in perpetually?

There would be no figures on how many refused housing - iirc in the Fleming case, that detail was leaked, presumably by a council employee.

Muir

For anyone saying that people should be moved to the country, you're aware we have a country wide homelessness problem, right? The homeless services have been stretched to their limits all over the country. I don't understand where all these magical places are that I hear people saying the homeless should be moved to. The issue is that there are not enough properties available for rent to meet the demand, so the prices have become unaffordable for most people, and unless something drastic changes it's going to get worse with more and more working people being priced out of the housing market.

You might get the odd cheap rental that's in the middle of the countryside, but that really isn't a feasible option for anyone who doesn't or can't afford to drive.

There is an issue, and the issue isn't the few people who do have a sense of entitlement and take the piss. It's really sad to see so many people get caught up on the small few who do that, instead of looking at the bigger picture and the overall numbers of rough sleepers and families needing emergency accommodation and how much those numbers are increasing.

You also have to wonder why the government are making decisions to convert buildings, many of which are disused warehouses, into family hubs (emergency accommodation under a new name) when the money could be better used to provide local authority housing which would be a longer term solution and also generate more income for local authorities through rent. But once they can re-brand it into something that sounds nice and not have to call it emergency accommodation anymore it makes it look like the issue is being resolved.

There are empty Local Authority flat complexes around Dublin that may need some work, but could go a long way in helping the issue. There are empty properties all over the country that could be used. But a homeless crisis and increased rental and property prices means we're building again, the jobs are back and the recession is over and those on top are profiting. I'd love to know how much of an impact that's having on the government's reluctance to do anything to actually solve the problem.

Muir

Vizzy wrote: »

In a Local Authority that I dealt with there was 21% refused in 2016 and 15% refused so far in 2017.
( that is "first refusals" and the housing applicants are allowed to refuse 2 offers before they are taken off the list, so you can probably halve that figure for actual "total refusal to take a house")

I certainly don't want to see people housed in hotels but if that is what they choose over an offer of a house, then what can you do ?
BTW, don't want an Erica Fleming situation either, whereby you can refuse as many offers as you like until you are housed next door to mammy/the school/the shopping centre.

Majority of rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation haven't ever been offered local authority housing though. So those figures don't refer to a percentage of the number of those homeless, they refer to those who have actually been offered housing, and the numbers who have actually been offered housing are probably quite small in comparison given that local authority housing isn't being built.

Wheeliebin30

Muir wrote: »

Majority of rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation haven't ever been offered local authority housing though. So those figures don't refer to a percentage of the number of those homeless, they refer to those who have actually been offered housing, and the numbers who have actually been offered housing are probably quite small in comparison given that local authority housing isn't being built.

Link?

sasta le

Would all these fake students comingbin huge numbers affect number of places to rent

Vizzy

Muir wrote: »

Majority of rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation haven't ever been offered local authority housing though. So those figures don't refer to a percentage of the number of those homeless, they refer to those who have actually been offered housing, and the numbers who have actually been offered housing are probably quite small in comparison given that local authority housing isn't being built.

Agreed that most of the rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation have probably never been offered housing. But there have been a few that I am aware of who have refused housing.
Then there are those among the "homeless" who are simply incapable of maintaining a tenancy, so even when they are offered housing, they are homeless again within a very short time.
Plus, what people seem to forget that we supposedly 300+K applications which require housing.
Of these, most are adequately housed in either HAP or Rent Supplemented housing.
The number of persons who are homeless (say 8,000 applications) represents only about 2.5% of the overall total.

end of the road

JC01 wrote: »

If they need to be housed because they can't afford to house themselves then I'm sorry but you accept the first offer you get.

i'm not sorry but you don't accept the first offer you get unless it's suitable.

JC01 wrote: »

Nobody offered to give me an extra 100k to buy where I really wanted too, I compromised and bought what real world practicalities told me I could buy.

and? so what? that means nothing to others. i also had to do the same, we are nothing special.

JC01 wrote: »

I don't see why these same realities shouldn't apply to social housing.

because they can't. it's not practical. what you have to do means nothing to others.

JC01 wrote: »

It's not for no good reason. It's because they refused the property they were offered in this hypothetical situation.

it's for no good reason. someone refusing a property is for the local authority to deal with.

JC01 wrote: »

If they want to turn too crime as a result of there decisions that's not anybody's business but the judicial system.

we will have to pay a lot more for it and we will be at greater risk, so it is my business.

JC01 wrote: »

I loathe this point as it's basically threatening society with a "look after me how I want or else" attitude.

sure, but it's still reality.

JC01 wrote: »

That thinking is utterly unacceptable in the normal working to buy a home class of people in this country so again I cannot comprehend how it can be let apply to people on a housing list.

because it's a non-issue. it's been blown out of all proportion.

end of the road

Vizzy wrote: »

If they choose to turn this down, well then they clearly are putting other priorities above their housing

they aren't no . or at least it cannot be proved, only they will know that

Vizzy wrote: »

If they turn down suitable housing, then the Local Authority have met their housing need.

they haven't as they haven't been housed.

Vizzy wrote: »

They will ultimately need to be housed somewhere but the Local Authority have no obligation to provide it.

they have within reason.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Because it realised in time long run it costs too much and isn't viable.

It's not that hard to understand.

There is only a limited amount of money.

40 billion a year on health and welfare.

it is viable. the reason they stopped was due to lobbying and other factors and vested interests. it was nothing to do with viability as it is viable. it's not viable however to leave social housing in the hands of the private sector as it's not profitable for them.

JC01 wrote: »

Off topic but that 40billion could arguably be halved if private sector efficiancy was introduced.

it would not halve with so called private sector efficientsy, it would quadruple or more for a more inefficient system, as we can see from the uk where privatization of parts of the wellfare and other services has happened. there is no political will to do it because for all their faults, the irish government see that there is nothing to be gained and it is not financially or socially viable.

JC01 wrote: »

Unfortunately there is 0 political will to do so much like there is 0 political will to just bite the bullet, build 3k social housing units in north Dublin, 2k in Cork and 1k in Galway/Sligo, introduce an absolute zero tolerance attitude to anti social behaviour in these units and actually fix this problem in two years.

I don't think this is a question of money, as is usually the case in Ireland, political realitys are the core problem.

indeed.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

They do have a roof over their head.

And like Erica Fleming a lot have been offered housing but are refusing therefore keeping their children "homeless".

But you don't want to discuss that.

because there is nothing to discuss. the odd couple of people refuse housing, they are put back to the back of the list, job done. non-issue that is blown out of all proportion.

Muir

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Link?

Not sure what sort of link you want on that, I would have thought it was common sense given the sheer number of people on the waiting list for council housing, the fact that there's very little being built and the fact that there are a large number of people in emergency accommodation - and those people may not even be top of the list.